brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:New namespace MoSs
For both MoSs Straight from the "General" section of BP:MOS: * All articles should contain correct spelling, punctuation, capital letters and language structure. ** LEGO, DUPLO and QUATRO should all be spelled with capitals. ** Generally, minifigure should not be abbreviated to "minifig" or "fig". * A subject should be linked once upon its first appearance in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's lead section, once upon its first mention in the article's main body, and throughout the minifigure gallery (if applicable). * Any images placed throughout the article should be of a suitable size, captioned appropriately, and "fit in" well with the rest of the article (for example, placing a single large image at the very bottom of an article which hasn't been resized with the caption "an hq pic of the set" would not be acceptable). * If anything requires indenting in an infobox, should be used. Customs * All articles must contain: ** At least one image of the MOC. Failure to do so will result in the page's eventual deletion. ** An infobox (I'm guessing we're going to need at least one new infobox). ** Attribution to the creator of the MOC. * All pages must indicate that the page is a custom creation and not written from the point of view that it is a product released or soon to be released as an official LEGO product. Other proposals: Reviews * I don't know... got to talk about some sort of minimum standard. * Review template? Maybe more flexible than the review template at the reviews wiki, but the same basic appearance, with custom headings able to be filled out. * US or UK spelling may be used in reviews, depending on the user's preference of English spelling. Discussion I spent half an hour working on something, and then my internet lost its connection just as I hit publish, so give me some time and space and I'll try to get it back down. First, I agree with what you have for customs (so far), but I do have some problems with the reviews. 1. First of all, I don't think that all parts of the general MoS should apply. :*"Articles should use British English for their spelling." As long as it's English and follows "All articles should contain correct spelling, punctuation, capital letters and language structure.", I don't see why an article can't be written in somebody's own (English) tongue. :*"Articles should be written from a neutral point of view (that is, objective). Pointing out features of the topic of the article (eg a set) is encouraged, but using sentences such as "this set is one of the best sets in its theme because..." is not." I don't think that this should apply to reviews, because then simply saying that we do not like a minifigure or a play feature would not comply with the MoS. And personally, I think it should be required to say what you think of the set or whatever. 2. Rather than just a big MoS, could we have a smaller one and an MoR? (M'''anual '''o 'R'equirements). I do have some ideas for it, but I'll have to fill in later. Feel free to suggest something. 3. Since these would be sub-wikis, would we be able to have the article comments available for reviews and customs? 12:03, November 10, 2011 (UTC) * Yeah, sorry, I agree with point 1 completely- I didn't thoroughly re-read the whole section (short on time), I was just referring to the spelling, capitalisation, decent captions, etc. And other two points sound fine to me too- I would really like to see article comments for these two namespaces, but defintiely not at the cost of turning them on in our main namespace. 22:36, November 10, 2011 (UTC) **I'm not good at coding, but I'd think that if these are sub-wikis, they could have different features. I really wouldn't know though 17:59, November 11, 2011 (UTC) ***A new custom infobox- . See it in action here. 18:50, November 11, 2011 (UTC) ****I'm not sure about every point of the MoR- I don't think we need a strict MoR. Why does a review need a minifigure gallery? 21:49, November 11, 2011 (UTC) A template for a review- Template:Reviewstars. Please note, I don't think you should have to use this- it's completely optional. 21:51, November 11, 2011 (UTC) A 'notablity' policy for customs: *Minifigures/Sets- A picture must be uploaded *Themes- There must be pages + pictures for all the sets Will we be wanting custom themes? 02:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC) MoR/MoS Proposals For an MoR, I'd say that every set review should have: *The reviewers thoughts on the set, the minifigures (if any), Value for Money, Parts, and Playability. *At least one picture of the set *A minifigure gallery *A rating of the the minifigures (if any), Value for Money, Parts, Playability, and overall *A summary (would you recomnd it? What are your final thought?) *Good organization 21:42, November 11, 2011 (UTC) * I don't know about a picture and minifigure gallery- if we're going to have multiple reviews on each page, it would be pretty unecessary to have it repeated over and over. Once per page would be fine though- maybe we could have a template something like this? Of course, a lot of that info wouldn't be needed since it'd be on wiki page here, just talking about the general layout and inclusion of the minifigure gallery. But the rest sounds good 21:56, November 11, 2011 (UTC) **That works for me, but I'd still like at least the picture at the top, for a reader's point of reference without leaving the page. 01:35, November 12, 2011 (UTC) General comments I think the term "Manual of Style" is too strong for original content; everyone has their own style and we should respect that. We should divide these new "rules" into two sections: requirements and guidelines. For customs, the only requirement is a photo or rendering of the MOC. Heck, you can even do without a description, as long as it has a name and a pic. Oh, and no set numbers in the title. Reviews should be much looser. As long as the content is written in readable English and relates to the topic reasonably, you can basically run wild. The guidelines for customs would cover some basic tips for writing a good MOC page, like how to write a good fictional background or describe the process of devising and creating the custom. Reviews would have fairly strict guidelines, but editors won't get bashed for violating them. The review guidelines should cover the use of , organizing your essay, etc. Since this is original content, I don't think it's wise to force a certain style of writing. A minimal set of requirements and a liberal helping of tips and guidelines would be, in my opinion, a good start. FB100Z • talk • 00:41, December 10, 2011 (UTC) * That's pretty much what we've got right now- see BR:MOR and BC:MOR, they just list the basic requirements for each thing, there isn't intended to be any set "style" as such, And I agree StarTable should be mentioned, but it doesn't necessarily have to be used, I'll add a note about it though. 01:17, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Revival * Ok, I've made two pages- Brickipedia:Customs/Manual_of_Requirements and Brickipedia:Reviews/Manual_of_Requirements. Reviews is blank, because I don't think we have anything, customs has a few things we've discussed here and also in the main reviews/custom forum. . So, reviews- any ideas as to what we should have? 08:57, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ** Added the basic "spell stuff the right way" part to both MoRs, so I guess there's something on the reviews now. Also, would it be ok to use "BR" and "BC" for shortcuts? Eg, BR:MOR for Brickipedia:Reviews/Manual of Requirements, BC:MOR for the corresponding custom page? 09:05, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ***Those shortcuts make a lot of sense. 14:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC) *I think the Reviews MOR should include something about using all of the correct templates, although I suppose that is somewhat obvious. **Should be there still, somebody could conveniently "not know". 21:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ***Exactly... **** Well, they can hit the "review page" createplate button and it's all there :) But I don't think we can really expect people who aren't super-active to remember to put s around Category:User reviews (still working on a createplate here, not going well) 22:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC) **** Added some shortcuts for the MoRs, if anyone has problems with them, they can always be deleted. 01:18, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Rename Can we just make it "Requirements" instead of "Manual of Requirements?" Less is more. By the way, I've made Brickipedia:Reviews/Guidelines and Brickipedia:Customs/Guidelines. Any thoughts? FB100Z • talk • 21:19, December 10, 2011 (UTC)